Review of One Advisory 

Board-Selected Case 

Reworked for the 

Evaluation of Anaconda 

Technical Basis Document 

Revisions (DCAS-PER-065, 

Subtask 4)

Kathleen Behling

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, Subcommittee for Procedure Reviews

November 3, 2021
DCAS-PER-065, “Anaconda”

◆ Issued November 2015 due to revisions to 

Anaconda site profile (Battelle-TBD-6000, 

appendix G)

◆ Revision increased external dose for all job 

categories in all years of operation

◆ SC&A reviewed DCAS-PER-065 in June 2017: 

no findings

2
DCAS-PER-065, subtask 4 – review 

of one reworked case

◆ ABRWH selected one reworked case for SC&A’s 

review March 2021, based on following criteria:

– assignment of external dose for operators and laborers

– employment during the period 1956–1958

◆ SC&A reviewed reworked case in August 2021

3
NIOSH reworked DR

◆ NIOSH’s rework of the case:

– Used applicable DR tools 

– Recalculated all annual doses 

– Re-ran IREP

◆ Revised DR report not sent to DOL because the 

compensation decision did not change

4
SC&A’s review of reworked DR

◆ SC&A’ review was generally limited to 

reevaluation of pathways addressed in the PER

◆ External doses increased due to Anaconda site 

profile changes

◆ SC&A also assessed internal exposure to 

evaluate significant differences in NIOSH’s 

original and reworked doses

5
Case background

◆ Energy employee (EE) worked at Anaconda for 

three decades

◆ EE worked throughout site

◆ EE was not monitored for radiation exposure

◆ Diagnosed with qualifying cancer several years 

after employment termination

6
Comparison of NIOSH’s reworked 

doses versus original doses

Dose categories Reworked vs. original dose 

percentage

External 95% reduction

Medical 261% increase

Internal 99.6% reduction

Total 71% reduction

POC 86% reduction

7
Original external dose calculations

◆ Performed prior to issuance of Battelle-TBD6000, appendix G, using Scherpelz (2006)

◆ Assumed EE exposed 1 foot from a rectangular 

uranium slab for 3 days in 1956 and 30 days in 

1959 for 10 work hours/day at 2.08 mrem/hour

◆ Bladder assumed as surrogate organ for photon 

dose conversion factor (DCF) of 1.523

◆ Assigned external dose of >1.0 rem

8
Reworked external dose calculations

◆ Used guidance in TBD-6000, appendix G, rev. 1

◆ Calculated external dose using annual photon 

doses for each year of uranium operations from 

table G.2

◆ Per ORAUT-OTIB-0005, rev. 05, liver assumed 

as surrogate organ for photon DCF of 1.064

◆ Assigned external dose of ~0.050 rem

9
Original medical dose calculations

◆ Assumed annual x-ray for each year of 

employment

◆ Urinary bladder assumed as surrogate organ 

◆ Used dose data from table 6-5 of OTIB-0006, 

revision 03 PC-1

◆ Assigned external dose of ~0.1 rem

10
Reworked medical dose calculations

◆ Assumed annual x-ray for each year of 

employment

◆ Gallbladder assumed as surrogate organ 

◆ Used dose data from table 6-5 of OTIB-0006, 

revision 03 PC-1

◆ Assigned external dose of >0.3 rem

11
Original internal dose calculations

◆ Uranium intakes assigned for extrusion and rolling in 1956 and 

1959 using operator data from table 7.8 of Scherpelz (2006)

◆ Air sampling data derived from summary of Atomic Weapons 

Employer metal-working sites

◆ 30-day intake for each process applied for each year

◆ Intakes of recycled uranium components from plutonium-239 

and neptium-237 were scaled from uranium intakes

◆ Type M solubility was claimant favorable

◆ Inhalation and ingestion intakes applied as inhalation

◆ Assigned internal dose of ~0.250 rem

12
Reworked internal dose calculations

◆ Uranium intakes assigned based on 

inhalation/ingestion intakes from TBD-6000, 

appendix G, table G.1

◆ Appendix G used highest reported air monitoring 

data (39 dpm/m3) in work areas in 1956 and 1959

◆ Doses calculated for each year of uranium 

operations

◆ Type M solubility found to be claimant favorable

◆ Assigned internal dose of 0.001 rem

13
SC&A’s conclusions on external dose

◆ Reworked external dose:

– Appropriate dose assigned based on appendix G

– Surrogate organ based on current revision of OTIB0005

– Doses entered into IREP correctly

◆ Reworked occupational medical dose:

– Appropriate dose assigned based on OTIB-0006

– Surrogate organ selection based on OTIB-0005

– Doses entered into IREP correctly

14
SC&A’s conclusions on internal dose

◆ Reworked internal dose:

– Appropriate intake values used as specified in 

appendix G

– Input data entered into IMBA correctly

– Assumptions claimant favorable

◆ SC&A had no findings with the selected reworked 

case impacted by PER-065

15
References

◆ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2011). Dose 

reconstruction from occupational medical x-ray procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006, 

revision 04). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/tibs/or-t6-r4.pdf

◆ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2012). Internal dosimetry 

organ, external dosimetry organ, and IREP model selection by ICD-9 code

(ORAUT-OTIB-0005, rev. 05). https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/arch/tibs/ort5-r5.pdf

◆ National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2014). Site profiles for 

Atomic Weapons Employers that worked uranium metals: Appendix G –

Anaconda (Battelle-TBD-6000 Appendix G, rev. 1). 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/b-6000-apg-r1.pdf

◆ Scherpelz, R. I. (2006). Site profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that worked 

uranium and thorium metals (PNWD-3738, rev. 0). Pacific Northwest Division, 

Battelle, Richland, WA.

16
Questions?

17